Currently the commandments state "No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed"- does this mean groups advocating unlawful activity while it is unlawful or does it also include groups that are advocating that a law be changed to let a currently illegal act be legal?

+

Currently the commandments state "No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed"- does this mean groups advocating unlawful activity while it is unlawful or does it also include groups that are advocating that a law be changed to let a currently illegal act be legal? {{unsigned|JoshuaZ}}

Archives

Bible

How about a commandment stating that Bible and research based on the Bible is considered valid. Initially I saw no reason for such a commandment but as Conservapedia users have expanded in number there are increasing numbers of edit removing biblical references from articles.--AustinM 06:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)

What are some examples of biblical references being removed? (Go into the History of the article, click on "Diff" at the point where it was removed, copy the long URL, and paste here...) Were they truly relevant? What did the whomever removed them state as the reason? Dpbsmith 07:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)

The reasons for such removal are simple: there are individuals here who have brought their liberal-leaning bias with them from Wikipedia, and the intent is sabotage. Don't believe me? Go to Wikipedia here:[1], and you'll see a subheading titled Conservapedia contributions, and you'll see the following:

Josh, I've got 108 people in my facebook group "Conservapedia is the Funniest Shit I've Ever Read" all contributing [tastefully] to conservapedia. We're not being blatantly vicious, but rather presenting them with cited facts. Their site is a frickin' joke. As we all know, to quote the esteemed Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." Thanks for fighting the good fight over there with us. --Boss hogg01 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The individual referred to as "Josh" is user:JoshuaZ, who has nested himself here. Karajou 23:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The bible is not valid research in any matter scientific, and should be removed from ALL articles pertaining to actual science. However the bible is relevent to many other subjects and in my opinion should be cited, however should not be taken as absolute fact. -SJ

The Bible has been proven to be a reliable historical and scientific document, and as such it stays. To back this claim up there will be relevent documentation and source material included in every article pertaining to the Bible. Fair enough? Karajou 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

The Bible scientific? Where was I when this was decided? Also you can't use it as a historical information source as well as it has many conflictions within itself. For instance the see the Genealogy of Jesus. Definately not historically accurate. --trekie9001 16:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not going to use as a source of Biblical information anything from Wikipedia. As for the Bible being a reliable source of info both historical and scientific, that was decided long before you were born. And we are going to use it here. Karajou 14:26, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

The only case I can see for Bible entrys in scientific articles is for historical accuracies. Otherwise, it has no point, the Bible is a religious text (somewhat of a historical text, but that's debatable), not scientific text. It'd be like having entries from the Koran in here about science. As to that point, which Bible would be used? Would entries from the Book of Maccabees count (In the Catholic Bible, but omitted in other versions, etc.)? I'm just saying you can't specify "The Bible" when there are numerous different versions and translations out there. Hengineer 04:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia

I propose another commandment, even though it should be common sense, that you can't copy from other sites. I've come across too many articles that have been copied directly from Wikipedia, and maybe fewer people would do it if there was a Commandment about it. MountainDew 00:59, 11 March 2007 (EST)

Copying/making derived works from wikipedia is allowed under the terms of the GFDL. Instead of banning content from wikipedia, editors should be encouraged to maintain the license of GFDL content under the terms of the GFDL. MikeA 03:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Most wikis are under the GFDL so they can freely borrow from each other and I can't think of a good reason why Conservapedia should be any different in that regard. Sulgran 03:17, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I suspect that Aschlafly wants to maintain more control, or at least have the option of maintaining more control, than the GFDL allows. Dpbsmith 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, direct copy-pasting should be discouraged, as it is sort of hypocritical; "we don't like Wikipedia, that's why we created this project, but lots of the information here is an exact duplicate" doesn't make all that much sense. Editors should be encouraged, however, to use Wikipedia articles as jumping-off points for articles, and to glean ideas for what to add to an article lacking in content. Just my $0.02. --Hojimachong 03:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

For what it's worth, Wikipedia is perfectly cool with the idea of a "Wikipedia fork," that is starting with Wikipedia and changing it ("creating a derivative work")... e.g. removing content that's inappropriate for children, correcting bias selectively in articles that seem biased, or whatever. Dpbsmith 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

You know, basically doing what all of you could be doing at Wikipedia if you didn't prefer secession over improvement. IMFromKathlene 14:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm with Hojimachong. I do use Wikipedia for ideas when writing articles from scratch, but I try to write everything myself. MountainDew 03:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

A lot of .gov sites don't carry copyrights and I think are de facto PD. Caveat: IANAL Second Amendment 03:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

the copyright policy should take care of that. Geo. 03:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What about things such as medications or treatment? I tried looking up medications, can't find them here. Yet I can find them on wikipedia very easily. Furthermore what about medical conditions?

The copyright policy is clear concerning Wikipedia articles: there is none, and everything is in the public domain. If it is forbidden to use such articles as a basis for our own here, then it must be perfectly clear on that point. But in my own opinion, I am for using such articles, improving them, removing bias and anti-Christian/conservative stuff. What say you? Karajou 23:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Karajou, Wikipedia HAS a copyright policy. It's most definitely not public domain. And since Conservapedia most likely won't use the GFDL for its own content, we can't just grab articles and repost them here as our own. At least that's what I understood. --Sid 3050 16:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

At the very least, I'd like some clarification. MountainDew 15:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Nowhere on the site can I find any reference to the license applied to Conservapedia content. What is it? It is both unreasonable and impractical to expect this wiki to grow without providing this information to the potential contributors. Are we to assume that all the content that we submit becomes sole property of Conservapedia under traditional copyright? This is a problem of grave importance that must be addressed before Conservapedia can expect to grow beyond its meager roots. – Fʀɪɺøʟɛ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 12:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note: GFDL is not public domain. There are rules associated with it and one of those is to give proper credit to the (main) authors of the work. Direct copy-paste without mentioning sources is not allowed, and technically, the derived work should also be under the GFDL and cannot be claimed as the work of the "author" nor as copyrighted by Conservapedia. Besides, it's extremely bad manners to just grab somebody else's text and put it up here as one's own work. In any way, Conservapedia needs a policy for this, as it might even have legal repercussions. For example, Wikipedia or one of their contributors could bring Conservapedia or one of its contributors to court for copyright infringements, and although IANAL, I suppose they would stand a fair chance in court. A forced complete shutdown of Conservapedia is not unthinkable if it should come to this. PaulB 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I suggest this for a good copyright statement:

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work on Conservapedia is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

or this:

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of cultural, artistic, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. It is made available for the purpose(s) of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. It is believed this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving similar information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Categorizing Articles

On someone's talk page an admin said :

Hi and welcome. Please don't add a tag to a bunch of entries. Please improve them instead. Blocking will occur of accounts that simply tag entries.

If this is true than the Conservapedia Commandments should mention it. Unwritten rules are always frustrating to new editors.

Links in an article

My question is in regard to how closely an article should be substantiated, or attributed. For example, the Scientology article has no links within it. Some of its statements are true (of my own knowledge). Other statements in it are opposed by the Church of Scientology (several court cases). Should the article be kept brief and simply have no critics' 'lies' in it, or should the article attribute its statements ? Or is there another, better way? Terryeo 21:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.

What is the criteria for "true" here? My guess would be that the Bible is considered literally true here, so material directly mentioned there is covered. I know that the admins here don't agree with Wikipedia's "consensus of the masses" method of determining what is valid for a page, so is there another defined process here?

Also, what does "verifiable" mean? Again, I figure "in the Bible" is a valid way to verify something on this site. How would someone verify, "There is little consensus among scientists about how macroevolution is said to have happened"? As far as I can tell, much of the verification process seems to be about quotation. What is the process for determining which quotes are appropriate or inappropriate? For example, the statement about macroevolution above is supported by three quotes afterwards. How do we know those quotes are a representative sample?

I'm interested in contributing here, but I want to make sure I understand the rules before I start taking part. MrBob 17:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Interesting point. furthermore 1,2 and 6 seem to say similar things. Number one says things must be verifiable. Number two says that you must cite sources - which sounds similar to saying they must be verifiable. Number six says that you mustn't post personal opinion - but if what you are posting is verifiable and sourced then it shouldn't be personal opinion anyway.
-
- An example of a page which contains unverified, un-sourced personal opinions in the page on "liberal" which has no less than 19 such statements. I'm not saying they're not true - simply that they don't obey commandments 1,2 and 6. http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal

Cite a source, Must be verifiable and No personal opinion can be argued to be separate subjects. However there is a point of view that sees them as a single subject. Encyclopedic material will usually fulfill all 3 elements. A main source of editing disagreement at wikipedia has revolved around this mushroom circle. A personal website, for example, can be cited, can be verified, and might contain what appears to be a document's replication. But cited, verified information on a personal website is no more reliable than the owner of the personal website. People who would quash freedom of religion use this to pieces, it is a big source of difficulty at wikipedia. The personal website, clambake.org comes to mind. So let us work at keeping the inclusion bar just a little bit too high, rather than just a little bit too low, okay? Terryeo 11:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, OK. They look similar to me, but I suppose if you look hard enough you can tease out a difference. What about the fact that our page "liberal" ignores all three of them? There would seem to be little point in defining exquisitely nuanced rules if they are simply ignored in practice --British_cons(talk) 15:38, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Huh - I guess I should have asked this here. Oh well, here goes again. Given that the Bible is specifically named as an acceptable source, are there any works which are specifically not acceptable? If so, a lot of time and energy could probably be saved by providing that info right up front, perhaps in a 'ready reference' page for new editors. Then if someone keeps using a deprecated source they'll be known to be trolling. Niwrad 00:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

There is a source which must not be copied from, Wikipedia. But that probably wasn't your question. Terryeo 11:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Propose: "Don't copy"

NOTE: Aschlafly comments on his Talk page:

Dpbsmith, at your suggestion I tried to write a "don't copy" rule. But I gave up. Some copying is OK, and some is essential. I copied the U.S. Constitution here, for example. Copying with express consent is also fine. So I don't know how to write a rule about this.--Aschlafly 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

So that would seem to settle it for the time being. Dpbsmith 14:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I have noticed far too many articles changed, and the attribution for the so-called "facts" direct the user to a Wikipedia entry, oftentimes written by the same person making the changes here! Shouldn't those types of "documentation" be disallowed? --TK 23:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.

Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources. Terryeo 11:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Propose (with footnotes as shown);

Original work only, please. Even if you only mean to use it as a starting point, don't begin by copying a whole article from anywhere—not even if the article under a "free" license, not even if it is truly in the public domain.[1]Quoting a few sentences or a paragraph to illustrate a point is fine. Identify it as a quotation and show where it came from.[2]

(Because: some new users who are familiar with other Wikis make incorrect assumptions about Conservapedia). Dpbsmith 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

This is going to slow the project to a crawl? I've posted a couple of articles that I got from .gov and .mil sites that had no copyright info at all.If you're going to require original research I'm going to guess that the site may eventually decided to reserve all rights? Crackertalk 18:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm proposing this, not because I necessarily advocate it, because I believe this is already the de facto policy. Since the Commandments page makes a point of saying "This page is the only rule page on Conservapedia," any important policies need to be made explicit. The reason I believe this is the de facto policy is that Aschlafly has said:

"note that we do not copy directly from Wikipedia or other sources, so please do not repeat that approach"

(In response to "the first paragraph of the article on [Marsupial] is a direct copy from Wikipedia ... If conservapedia doesn't subscribe to the GDFL, then this material should be removed.) "Thanks. I removed virtually all of the first paragraph per your comment. We don't want copied material here."

"I'd prefer that we don't copy anything at all!"

"there is little point in wholesale copying of material from another Wiki into Conservapedia. What would that accomplish? Let's try to be original here."

and he has chastised Wikipedia for copying from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, which of course is well out of copyright.

As for reserving all rights, see the draft proposal at User:Geo.plrd/copyr2 and discussion at User talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2. Judge for yourself how close it is to adoption. One of the points is "Content is copyrightED under the laws of the United States America"[sic]. I think Conservapedia wants to maintain control so that it can grant or deny permission for re-use, and, yeah, I think ultimately that's going to mean "copyrighted." Aschlafly has said they don't mind and won't go after good-faith copying that doesn't harm Conservapedia, but I doubt that will be articulated formally or explicitly. Dpbsmith 18:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I think this is a great commandment, but it could be reworded to be less "harsh", and shouldn't be put into effect for another month or so; we want the project to build, and restrictions on copying would hinder the still very frail project. --Hojimachongtalk 19:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to propose a condition to this to develop the growth of the project- That articles, especially those from wikipedia can be copied, but once applied to articles here, should be Heavily edited by us to remove any liberalisim apparent in the article. This would develop the quality of pages already created, and doesn't violate Wikipedias GDFL. see Wikipedia's Policy on Verbatim Copying. In browsing the site I have seen that a lot of articles are one-liners. Implicating something like this could greatly the quality of the pages already running.Xsophos 05:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Unfortunately, what you're proposing most definitely does violate Wikipedia's GFDL, in two ways.

First, the GFDL does not allow re-use of GFDL-licensed content unless the copy is also licensed under GFDL. Since Conservapedia does not license its material under the GFDL, Conservapedia cannot use GFDL material whether verbatim or modified. Ditto Creative Commons or other "free" licenses.

Second, the link you cite says clearly that simple verbatim copying of an article article is allowed only with restrictions. You seem to be focussing on the "allowed" part and conveniently ignoring the restrictions. Three of them are:

"You may not add, remove, or change any content or links within the Main Text..."

"You must link to a local copy of the GFDL," which I doubt that Conservapedia has, and

"You must make it clear that the content from Wikipedia is available under the GFDL license."

Now, if you "heavily edit it" you actually make the situation worse, because the GFDL license all of the above and requires that the fresh, original material also be subject to the GFDL and also requires that you link back to the source, Wikipedia or CreationWiki or whatever, or do something so that the article isn't just attributed to its source, but so that the entire article history is available (i.e. the reader can, if they want to, trace all the editors who made changes to the article and what exact changes they made when).

All of these remarks also apply to CreationWiki. In practice, CreationWiki being friendly I doubt they'd object.

However, if it were clear that Conservapedia was systematically and intentionally defying the GFDL, i.e. that it was part of its official mission to challenge the GFDL by violating it on a systematic, large-scale way with the sanction of the management, I can imagine that Wikipedia or the Free Software Foundation or some other organization who cares about the GFDL really might object in some serious way.

P. S. In case it isn't clear, the GFDL and friends carry some ideological baggage. Their main reason for being is to allow people to provide information that is "free" but to preventing exactly the situation you're proposing: taking free information, heavily editing it and adding new material to create a fresh, "derivative work," and then claiming that the derivative work is copyright or restricted. The jargon is "free as in freedom, not free as in beer," i.e. free for re-use, not just available without having to pay. It's all associated with Richard L. Stallman and the Free Software Foundation and heavily associated with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, if you want to read up on it. Dpbsmith 06:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Propose: "Choose an account name that's like your real name"

Propose:

Conservapedia asks you to choose an account name that resembles your real name; for example, if your name is August Banting, "AugustB" or "Abanting" would be good choices. If your choice is taken, add a numeral or two at the end.

(Because: even if your account name doesn't reveal enough of your real name to identify you, you know it's your own name, and we think this encourages people to think about what they're posting). Dpbsmith 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Wasn't this one scheduled to go onto the Registration page? *cocks head* Or do you want to make it a retroactive policy? --Sid 3050 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

No, if it goes on the Registration page that's fine. I just thought putting it here would be a good interim measure if it's not going to be on the Registration page soon. Dpbsmith 06:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Against Proposal:
How would this be of any use? If anyone wants to vandalize this wiki then they easily can. And if you start banning people with user names like mine (trekie9001) than people will just sign up as RichCheese or some other such "real" sounding names and it won't make a bit of difference. --trekie9001 16:39, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Notes

↑Conservapedia does not license its content under GFDL or Creative Commons, and thus is not compatible with the terms of the licenses. But Conservapedia does not want extensive material copied from anywhere, even if it is out of copyright.

↑We like to have this done "inline" by using <ref> tags, but if you don't know how to do this, just put the source in parenthese. Someone else will be glad to take care of the formatting for you.

Vandalism and 18 USC §1030

In 18 USC §1030, I fail to see anything that indicates vandalism of a wiki as an offense covered by it. This would be listed in section (a) of the law. Furthermore, all of the mention is about defrauding and exceeding access that has been granted. The open nature of the wiki grants the access and I don't see any indication of someone attempting to defraud or extort or trafficing in passwords or being a total of more than $5000 damage. It seems silly to try to threaten people with this when it does not apply. This is not to say that vandalism is not bad, but the cited law offers no federal protection. --Mtur 19:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Good luck trying that argument with a judge presented with clear vandalism. In Shurgard Storage Ctrs. v Safeguard Self Storage, Inc. (2000, WD Wash) 119 F Supp 2d 1121, for example, one side tried to argue that "fraud" meant something narrower than wrong of someone else in property rights by a scheme. Guess what? The court rejected the defense. No surprise there.

I bet there will be some new prosecutions based on vandalism of this new technology of Wiki, and it's not going to be pretty. On this issue, Wikipedia and Conservapedia will stand side by side.--Aschlafly 19:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Assuming that you reading of fraud is correct ("meant wronging of person in property rights by dishonest methods or schemes"), The sections that apply to defrauding are #4 and #6. #4 goes to state " knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization ... and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;" As the value of the vandalism is not conceivably more than $5,000 this fails. #6 is about trafficking in passwords "knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization". In most of the definitions the "without authorization" bit comes up - participation in the wiki is authorizing the person to make edits. --Mtur 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm with Mtur on this one. Accessing a protected computer means in or using someone elses logon info (same sorta thing). And the important part of the statute is obtaining anything of value, simply by editting information, which this website was created for, does not cause anyone to lose money. As I mentioned in my post on the talk p USC § 1470 I'd consult a criminal lawyer before making sweeping threats of legal action. Jrssr5 11:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This is laughable - you guys actually think anyone will take you seriously about those vandalism charges...but I guess you take yourself so seriously you started another version of wikipedia that is doomed to fail / be run by right wing loonies anyway.

While you are right in saying that some will vandalize pages regardless of any threats of prosecutions, you are wrong in saying no one will take these threats seriously. If we follow through with our new rule, I am positive that vandalism and obscenity will decrease significantly. Obviously, you underestimate this site. --<<-David R->> 12:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, you overestimate this site. Not only is it incredibly easy to hide your IP address or even use a public computer, but I think that you would actually get laughed out of court if you attempted to take someone on for posting anything on this website. The internet has been around for a decent ammount of time now and I'm pretty sure that very few people have gotten busted for "vandalizing" websites. You probably wouldn't even have standing in court. (Since you probably don't know what standing is you should go look it up on Wikipedia...since you guys seem to be missing the page). If you did they could defeat you on whether or not what they did was vandalism under any of those legal definitions.--GodAsMyWitness 12:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm kinda with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia has been around for how many years? And how many court cases have we seen on this basis so far? There must be at least several thousand cases so far, assuming that things work exactly like Andy says. My assumption is that, if Wikipedia hasn't managed to eliminate the vandal problem, Conservapedia won't magically eliminate it, either. --Sid 3050 12:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not with GodAsMyWitness here. Wikipedia forged new ground, that does not mean that Wikipedia DID IT RIGHT. A Wiki's quality could be said to be no better than the quality of its least editor. For wikipedia this means any person on the planet. A required registration is a step up, and though it might not be sufficient, it is a step toward quality improvement. Terryeo 10:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

It "could be said," but that wouldn't make it true. I don't know how to measure exactly how well Wikipedia "works" or how "good" it is, but I would say it works very well and is very good. I would also say it works surprisingly well and is surprisingly good, because it is much better than most people (including me) would have guessed, based on a description of how it operates. There are some pretty interesting social dynamics in play there. I don't know how well anybody understands them. Wikipedia articles are much better than the quality of its poorest editor. In contrast to, say Homosexuality here which is exactly as good as the quality of its sole editor. Dpbsmith 10:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Then there is the issue of foreign vandals; I noticed they could report vandals to their employer. As far as Canada goes, sharing such information with anyone other than the police would be a violation of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA for short). You see in the free world, we have the right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty. You would have to provide information to the police and allow them to conduct the investigation. --TrueGrit 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Layout suggestions

I am for layout instructions on the Rules page, just to make it clear where we stand, and what we can or cannot do. I currently am going to Midle Tennessee State University, and like many other universities they pretty much hammer into the students how to write articles, what should be cited, what plagarism is...all that stuff. So, in accordance with the Harbrace Manual, here's some suggestions for writing articles.

When writing, use the sandbox over and over, clicking on the "preview" button to look at it without posting it. The idea is to write, re-write, and re-write again, looking for correct grammar, spelling, and flow of thought. If it reads good, then post it.

When citing sources, write the name of the author and the page number in parenthesis at the end of the citation like this: (Smith, pg 12). In a separate sub-heading at the bottom of the article labeled "References", write the source in the following order: author, title, publisher, city/state published, last copyright year: Smith, John R. Theory of Light, Scribners, New York, 1977. University professors stress the importance of doing just that.

When it comes to pictures, write in the "summary" block the title, author/creator of the work, date created, and where it came from, such as a museum or magazine publisher. This should apply to all public domain works as well.

If the picture is copyrighted, say so, and by who/where. Write in the summary block FAIR USE REASON: (and it had better be a darn good reason!). I don't know if Fair Use is allowed here for pics of current news events, or people/places/things after 1923, so ask first!

That seems like good information to me, but should be available as some kind of help click or guideline or something. As opposed to, you know, an editor needing to come here to learn how to conform to standard editing practices. Terryeo 20:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Yup...like a "how-to" page that can be accessed immediately from the main page. Karajou 21:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

While I agree that cites need to be done in a coherent manner, I'm not such a big fan of the MLA system. What's wrong with traditional foot- and end-notes? The Wiki software supports that kind of referencing already. Niwrad 18:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

That is also a correct way to cite a source; foot and endnotes have been in use for years with no problem. What I said above is not written in stone, but there must be some sort of standard guide. Karajou 11:26, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Trollish Language

"in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia" is an unverified statement and one in a highly combative tone. If you wish to create a resource rather than simply attack other people, perhaps something constructive would be a good idea. Nirgal 13:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

My Prosecutor

Frankly, I'm very curious about the site and very much appreciate TRUE conservatism. However the sheer ridiculousness of this site is overwhelming. TO think that you could provide my IP address to my local prosecutor (snicker) AND expect them to do something about hurting your feelings or violating some internal code is actually very amusing. You are far more likely to have my prosecutor (here called a Crown Prosecutor, but try the RCMP first because they refer eveidence) call you and ask you to stop harrassing them. Just silly.

this is not harassment, it is law enforcement. Geo. 01:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It still begs the question of how such enforcement would be enacted. The original commenter has mentioned a Crown Prosecutor and the RCMP, so presumably is Canadian. Therefore, the cited title of the US Code cannot be applied if this person's log-in and edits are indeed coming from outside the U.S. I imagine that strictly speaking, the FBI would be involved since this would cross national borders, but I have to say the chances they and/or the RCMP would actually do anything about it are probably vanishingly small. Given the difficulty that usually obtains in extraditing murderers, rapists, drug-dealers or any other undesirables who flee US jurisdiction, I suspect electronic vandalism would be so far down in the ground clutter as to not even register. Niwrad 00:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Commandment #1 needs to be clarified in the article.

I think we need to specify that verifiable means you provide a footnote. For example, I believe the a Scopes trial article is poor because it has few footnotes. I think it would force Conservapedians to do better work if "verifiable" was clarified. Conservative 22:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Providing a footnote isn't enough ... you can find articles that will support any topic if you search hard enough. All references should be verified and ideally backed up with other sources. Jrssr5 08:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Well,there are already three commandments 1,2 and 6 which cover this point. The problem is they are consistently ignored. I doubt that clarifying number one would improve things, but I suppose it could. I have mentioned previously our article "liberal" which quite happily ignores all three and (the last time I looked) was protected to prevent anyone changing it.
--British_cons(talk) 14:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Further to this, are there any sources which are considered suspect or invalid? If so, it might be well to provide a ready-reference page for new editors so they will know up front which sources will not be accepted in citations.

On a related note, I don't see any policy one way or the other regarding original research. Wikipedia has a policy banning it; does the same rule obtain here? Inquiring minds would like to know. Niwrad 00:36, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Furthermore - you would have to show it is vandalism. Imagine trying to prove that a non-creationist but factually correct post was 'vandalism' in a court of law. I think it may well cause a laugh or too but certainly no penalty.

Against

Enforcement of the commandments and abuse of power

Alloco1 was given a 2 hour ban after making exactly two edits. The first was describing himself on his user page, the second was asking if an unattractive picture was chosen of Hillary Clinton on the article talk page and implying bias. What commandments did he or she violate?

AmesG was given a 1 week ban after engaging in a debate with the sysop Conservative, by that same Sysop. No neutral party was consulted and attempt to engage Conservative in discussion was stifled.

"These guidelines are kept simple in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia"

There appears to be a disconnect between the commandments and the enforcement of the commandments and it should be addressed if the site is to be respected. Myk 18:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Get used to it. Hypocrisy is the the lifeblood of ALL politics, and this is a political site. --Scrap 00:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Commandment Proposal

Checking over Aschlafly's talk page it seems like that has become the dumping ground for... well for everything. This is counterproductive both for Mr. Schlafly and for users that are accustomed to finding comments in the appropriate article or user talk page. And it certainly seems to be annoying. So perhaps there should be some manner of commandment regarding the use of user:talk pages as it appears to be a blockable offense. Myk 00:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I think it should be left as a disclaimer on individual User Talk pages. I got a ban warning for posting sarcasm on Aschlafly's Talk page, but I wouldn't have anything against that on my own talk page. Restricting activity on such a wide level because one or two people feel that they are being flooded strikes me as counter-productive.

I'd rather suggest that the admin team organizes its processes so Aschlafly doesn't get flooded with EVERYTHING. The creation of the Abuse page is a good start, but there should be a few (non-commandment) policies about where to report what. Right now, the only widely known policy is "If in doubt, ask Aschlafly". That's the real problem.

Aschlafly could (for example) put this at the top of his Talk page:

This page is not the universal Help Desk. If you wish to complain about an article, do so on its Talk page. If you wish to report abuse, do so at Conservapedia:Abuse. If you want to call for Admin Review, do so (Conservapedia: Admin Review). More generic problems can also be handled by other Admins, please try to distribute the load evenly.

Just a quickly created example. It would be the first step to educate the casual editors about what goes where. --Sid 3050 00:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I think if bans are going to be threatened, then the policy has to include banning as a consequence. Myk 00:38, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, yes. However, I think/hope that people don't REALLY get banned just for poking an Admin. That would have a very chilling effect on the overall mood (more than it has already). So I assumed that the real reason for Aschlafly's ban warnings is just a sign of stress in the face of a flooded Talk page. So if we fix that, we don't have to set up strict rules about what you aren't allowed to say on (User) Talk pages. Conservapedia already bans users over little things like content disputes, no need to make things even stricter.

But if the ban warning policy really stays like this, it should of course be reflected here. In particular, Rule 6 would have to be altered quite a bit. --Sid 3050 15:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Un-American Spelling

I am wondering why conservapedia feels threatened by, say, british spelling of words vs american spellings. I like to use the british spellings because my computer says it is spelled incorrectly, yet i still love America. A paradox, isn't it? Still, perhaps we should choose the correct dialect in America to use on this cite. Otherwise, someone could point out the british spelling is used in some parts of America, and thus be considered "American," and therefore be able to use it. I personally am partial to the Mid-west.--Fpresjh 10:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia is rather unusual in allowing and supporting a mix of usage styles. Most U. S. print publishers would specify a style manual calling out U. S. spelling. Most U. K. publishers would specify a style manual calling out British spelling. When a U. S. work is republished in the U. K. or vice versa, one of the publication steps would be copyediting the work to conform to local usage. A good example of this would be the first Harry Potter book, in which even the title was changed for the U. S. market. Conversely, I don't know if they would do this any more but I remembering reading a British edition of The Grapes of Wrath in which the Okies were talking about the difficulty of buying "a gallon a petrol" for their car.

99.9% of all print publications mandate that spelling conform to whichever side of the pond they're on, and nobody thinks twice about it. If Conservapedia wants to say "We're an American encyclopedia," this shouldn't in itself raise any eyebrows.

Wikipedia's policy is, of course, a very pragmatic response to the problem of producing an international English-language encyclopedia that is edited completely by unpaid volunteers who can't be ordered to use a uniform style and can't be assigned the job of copy-editing everything to a uniform style.

My guess, and it's just a guess, is that something like this could have happened. Suppose one day a student typed in something like Phonograph record, misinterpreted what happened, thought that Wikipedia had corrected what he had typed in, and told a teacher "No, the right name is 'Gramophone record,' Wikipedia says so," and the teacher overreacted.

Is there a legitimate concern about (say) U. S. high school students using Wikipedia as a learning resource and thereby acquiring incorrect spelling habits? Let me put it this way: Conservapedia's emphasis on this point seems grotesquely exaggerated, but I, at least, see the point. Dpbsmith 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Hate speech

Awhile back in Talk:Fred_Phelps the suggestion was made that hate speech should be prohibited on Conservapedia. I believe that it is time to present this as a suggestion for a commandment, especially when taken into context of Talk:Homosexuality. --Mtur 16:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Preaching God's word is not hate speech. Only homosexuals believe so. It's part of their agenda. RightWolf2 16:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

RightWolf, you make the baby Jesus cry.-AmesG 16:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe the best definition would revolve around bigotry. --Mtur 16:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No it is not. People committing sodomy are not in a protected class. Please don't try to hijack the righteous freedom train on a deadly detour from Selma to Sodom. being born Black is not a sin. Engaging in sexual perversion is. RightWolf2 16:23, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, right. Because we all know that homosexuality is a choice</sarcasm>. --Hojimachongtalk 16:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

In that case, many people on this site would be blocked. Most Christians regard homosexuality with extreme prejudice. --Hojimachongtalk 16:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

He went on a long rant about how creating a "cure" for homosexuality is an awesome idea. He then said "If genetic tinkering doesn't work, rifles rarely fail." Tell me how that is not hate speech. It's Nazism. --Hojimachongtalk 16:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I am merely quoting from the bible. I realize that it's "vouge" and "sylish" to accept homosexuals. You can tell it to my baby brother, who was kidnapped and raped by a homosexual when he was 11. RightWolf2 16:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Because if one individual in a group of tens of millions does something, then all of them must be bad. Hmmmm... brings to mind Eric Robert Rudolph, doesn't it? Does this mean that because one Christian did it, they all must be bad? --Hojimachongtalk 16:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, in regards to RightWolf, aside from the fact that he makes the baby Jesus cry with his bigoted, homophobic, hatemongering remarks, homosexuals are in a protected class, as a "discrete and insular minority" according to the term defined in Korematsu carried forward in Lawrence and Loving. The law is not on your side, and thankfully, neither is most of America. I'm with Hojimachong. Hate speech will further drag this site through the mud.-AmesG 16:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Not entirely true. In the state I am in, sodomy is a Class A misdemeanor and inducing acceptance of sodomy to a minor is a class 3 felony. Lawrence vs. Kansas has not been accepted here where minors are concerned. RightWolf2 16:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

You also should remove the references in the homosexual agenda about "supressing biblical teachings which condemn homosexuality" if this is the view of the majority. RightWolf2 16:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

What does a law regarding minors have to do at all? Regardless, I'd like to see you cite this alleged "law" that classifies sodomy as illegal. --Hojimachongtalk 16:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Hoji, he's probably right about his "state" having a law on the books banning sodomy. Georgia didn't repeal its immediately after Lawrence v TEXAS either. However, the sodomy law in his "state" will never be prosecuted again because any conviction is now per se unconstitutional. I don't know where you come from, RightWolf, but Supreme Court precedent is binding on all lower courts and states. It's not optional.

That said, I am deeply sorry for your brother, who was raped by a homosexual. No doubt there are gay men who are bad men. However, there are straight men who are bad men too. Being gay doesn't make you a rapist anymore than being straight makes you a rapist.

And finally, sodomy laws protecting minors are still in place, just like statutory rape laws still exist...-AmesG 16:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I personally believe in the First Ammendment, so any rule should be calefully thought out and clearly defined. --TimSvendsen 16:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Does the first amendment apply to the administration of a website? I'm no lawyer, But I don't think it would. Myk 16:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The first amendment only prohibits government from censoring speech. It is perfectly acceptable to censor anything on private property. --Mtur 16:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

4th C, (use of AD).

I've noticed an excessive use of 'AD' in contexts where it is rarely used, and in most instances, it's also being used wrongly. See my comments in Talk:Democratic Party. BC is used consistently to indicate pre-AD 1 dates, and not quite so often for early AD era dates, e.g., "3rd century AD", "AD 314". For uses with just the year, "AD 2007" is the usual and correct form (with AD in front and not at the end), and is never used with the month and day. I have rarely encountered the form "March 21, 2007 AD", and using it over and over again in the same article calls negative attention to the article. --Lohengrin 18:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

You are correct. Maybe some are using it constantly to (re)make a point over and over. That would be disruptive. --~ TerryKTalk2Me! 18:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I see the article Democratic Party has been expunged of the attention-grabbing ADs. As for the 4th C., it occurs to me this is merely a demand to follow a uniform style. Every publishing house has its own manual of style. Fine: we use BC/AD instead of the johnny-come-lately BCE/CE. I'm used to the MLA style manual; interestingly, Wikipedia and Conservapedia follows it, particularly in the presentation of the names of people, which makes for difficulties in alphabetizing biographical articles. My modest suggestion is that C. IV be rewritten to indicate everyone is expected to follow a standard style. As it stands, it seems Conservapedia has knee-jerking objections to BCE/CE a la letters to the editor in Biblical Archaeology Review. As for style, I have no objections to a breezy, mid-register style, provided the grammar, spelling and content/sourcing are sound (1st rule of writing: one always writes to the expected audience, and speaking above them, or worse, to a third party behind them, is an automatic turnoff to all readers). --Lohengrin 00:47, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I have no problem with using BCE/CE, it is used all the time in academics (and not just by "liberals"). But to expressively forbid them seems like a knee-jerk reaction in itself. Why not just use the two terms (BCE/CE and BC/AD) interchangeably? Hengineer 04:22, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

A good wiki rule - no personal attacks

No personal attacks. As this site grows and more people with different interpretations of source material join, it would be proper to put down a rule regarding personal attacks. As has recently been seen, this can can be very disruptive to the communication between editors, makes people who have positive contributions less likely to join and presents a poor image of conservapedia to the world. --Mtur 19:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I think this is a no-brainer, as Argumentum ad Hominem provides absolutely no value to any discussion. --Hojimachongtalk 22:29, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

rule # 6

why is this rule not enforced? 20:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Etiquette

Shouldn't you guys have a page detailing what etiquette is standard? I know you guys prefer rules you can get your knickers (or panties? I guess knickers is a British word) in a twist over, but it might be a good idea to talk about how exactly people are supposed to use talk pages and the like. For example, it doesn't say anywhere to sign your posts with three tildes, and it doesn't say exactly how to respond to comments on talk pages-- I'm never sure if I should respond directly after the post I'm replying to or after the replies to the post I'm replying to. This is just if you're interested in having people who didn't learn already this stuff at Wikipedia already, though. IMFromKathlene 14:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Your RH, one might want to check here [[2]] at the "Help" pages, clearly marked in the menu bar on the left. Thanks for your concerns, and I promise you, my knickers don't have wrinkle one. --~ TerryKTalk2Me! 18:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

American spelling

We have decided to remove Conservapedia Commandment 5. (American Spellings must be used) We decided that it wasn't enirely fair to and created too much trouble for our users who are not from America. However we would like Conservapedia to be as consistant as possible so we will continue to include american spellings as a style guideline. --CPAdmin1 21:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

CPAdmin, but then why have the American Flag in the Logo of Conservapedia if you're trying to be "fair" to non-Americans? Let's have a standard here! Hengineer 04:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

But if I publish my Original research on my own site, I can include it... --Cgday 11:24, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

It also potentially clashes with the "must be true" and "always cite" commandments (see Talk page of the Differences article). But who cares? We also forbid gossip and at the same time call it "factual information": See here. --Sid 3050 11:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

That's exactly right. Both Wikipedia and here would allow an author to present his personal opinion on his site and cite it here. This is why it would be better if we did not allow personal websites to be used for information in articles. If it is worthy information, it will appear elsewhere. It might mean a little more editor work, but it will save countless editor discussions. And it will greatly improve how the public sees us, too. Terryeo 02:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

em.. no .... wikipedia does not allow an author to do that - people try it, but it's removed where found. --Cgday 05:14, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

1) Wikipedia definitely does not allow an author to do that.

2) The key point here is "properly labelled." Andrew Schlafly is experimenting with this idea. I don't know how well formed it is. I haven't been following closely but he posted an example: Adultress Story - Original Work. Perhaps others will make similar contributions and a body of practice and policy will evolve. Dpbsmith 06:00, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

grammar

I believe this sentence is grammatically incorrect:

"When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis."

Deny the historical basis of what? It is a incomplete sentence. I don't want to fix the sentence because I don't know what the author intended. Is it "deny the historical basis" of the birth of Christ? If so, I think a citation is warranted. Conservative 03:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

"CE" and "BCE" should not be used on Conservapedia because that is exactly what the intent is; to deny historical basis.

"CE" stands for "Common Era." It is a relatively new term that is experiencing increased usage and secular progressives think it will eventually replace AD. The latter is an abbreviation for "Anno Domini" in Latin or "the year of the Lord" in English. The latter refers to the approximate birth year of Jesus Christ. CE and AD have the same and value. 2004 CE = AD 2004.

"BCE" stands for "Before the common era." It might eventually replace BC, which means "Before Christ," or "Before the Messiah." BC and BCE are also identical in value. Most theologians and religious historians believe that the approximate birth date of Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus) was in the fall, sometime between 7 and 4 BCE, although there are estimates as late as 4 CE and as early as the second century BCE.

At its year 2000 convention at Orlando FL, the Southern Baptist Convention approved their Resolution #9: "On retaining the traditional method of calendar dating (B.C./A.D.)." With reference to the popularity of the CE/BCE nomenclature, it stated, in part: "...This practice is the result of the secularization, antisupernaturalism, religious pluralism, and political correctness pervasive in our society." The traditional method of dating is a reminder of the preeminence of Christ and His gospel in world history." The resolution recommended that Southern Baptist "individuals, churches, entities, and institutions....retain the traditional method of dating and avoid this revisionism.

Those secularists and Liberal progressives adopting the new appellation's, often explain that the Ethic of Reciprocity (The Golden Rule) suggests that one should not intentionally cause unnecessary pain to other humans. We should treat others as we would wish to be treated. Since one out of every three humans on earth is a Christian, some very theologians and authors felt that non-religious, neutral terms like CE and BCE would be less "offensive" to the non-Christian majority on the planet. Forcing a Hindu, for example, to use AD and BC are seen by the Liberal progressives as coercing them to acknowledge the supremacy of the Christian God and of Jesus Christ. --~ TerryKMyTalk 08:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Regardless of my previous comment about BCE/CE and BC/AD, if we're going to stick with AD, please use it correctly! AD should be placed before the date, not after (e.g. AD 1999), while BC goes after (50 BC). Think about what the words mean (In the year of our Lord, 1999, 50 before Christ). I edited your comment TerryK to conform to the AD dating standard. I agree with what Conservative said, the split in "Common Era, Before Common Era" is based on the birth of Jesus, and that it lacks the historical context of that should be referenced. Hengineer 04:31, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Search Engine Exemption

Why the note exempting search engine spiders from "Commandment" 6. The "commandment" itself even specifies "wiki-bots" and it's not like a search engine spider would even obey anything like this. I propose the note be removed from the page because it is just dumb, useless, clutter. --trekie9001 16:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

sourcing

There is a conservapedia commandment stating: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I don't think this is enough. There are many articles at Conservapedia which do not have any sourcing via footnotes. I think this undercuts our credibility and helps encourage people to put mere opinion that is not sourced. I think over the long run if we are to compete with Wikipedia we must have sourcing. Sourcing should be a requirement and not merely implied.Conservative 18:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Credentials

Many times on this site, if someone does not like and edit, they question the person's credentials. This is a bit of an unfair attack, however, I have presented mine. Perhaps if someone wants to challenge someone else's credentials, they should consider revealing their own? --PalMDtalk 10:02, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I do think that if someone feels that they are more of an expert on a topic then a particular editor, they should be able to prove it. It is illigitimate to question someone's creds without showing yours.--PalMDtalk 13:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Such credentials should be on their user page, correct? Having yours in your name "MD" does no good. Besides, if someone has no credentials but can provide good verifiable sources that counter your claim, it should also be valid as well. Some people like me (tooting my own horn?) are very well read, but have only credentials in a certain area (some have none!). Hengineer 04:36, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Gossip vrs. legitimate scandal information

Commandment number 3 clearly rules out “gossip” the manual of style for political figures clearly says that “non-gossip scandals” are appropriate information to include in a political figure’s entry. Recently some information I (and others) had added to the entry on Rush Limbaugh was removed as gossip—I had included the part I added (and I assume this is true for the other contributors) under the belief that I was adding non-gossip scandal. I say that as background for my question: what is the dividing line between gossip and non-gossip scandal? I also asked this at Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style/Politicians, but it was suggested that I ask here. I am trying to make a contribution here and am trying to edit in line with the rules, but apparently despite my best efforts I may have inadvertently crossed a line, can someone please clarify what exactly is acceptable scandal information and what is unacceptable gossip?--Reginod 12:59, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Looking at the edit history, I take it you're referring to this? The assertion that he's "repeatedly" been the subject of "scandal and controversy," and the examples being (I'm taking them at their unflattering face value) a) comparing the Clinton's daughter to a dog (but in a way allowing him to pretend he was "just kidding"); b) the revelation that he was addicted to and illegally using oxycontin; c) remarks about Michael J. Fox implying that he was exaggerating his symptoms to gain sympathy.

Without trying to formulate policy, it seems to me that the essence of gossip is schadenfreude, delight in seeing some, particularly someone you dislike, humiliated, taken down a notch, exposed in a lie, etc.

One possible test of whether something should be in an article is this: would it be in someone's newspaper obituary? If you believe it would be in their obituary, than it's not just gossip. If you're not sure whether it would be in someone's obituary, you need to think about it carefully (and make an explicit case as to why it's not just gossip. I'm about to do a test; I don't know yet how it will come out. I'm going to look up Warren G. Harding's obituary in The New York Times (why the Times? because it's the one I have online access to). I'm guessing that it will say something about his administration being "marred by scandal" or something of that sort. I'm guessing it will mention Teapot Dome. What I don't know is whether it will mention Nan Britton. Almost certainly not, since she didn't publish her book until 1927. Let's go see... Dpbsmith 18:16, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Here we go, August 3, 1923, p 3. "HARDING A FARM BOY WHO ROSE BY WORK; Became a Newspaper Publisher, a Party Leader and Held Ohio Offices. PRESIDENT BY SUDDEN TURN His Wife Had a Premonition of His Death if Elevated to White House. WORK FOR ARMS REDUCTION His Efforts in Behalf of American Participation in the World Court." Nope, that article doesn't discuss his Presidency at all, to speak of... Interesting... as nearly as I can tell in a quick search, the Times mentioned Teapot Dome numerous times but did not conspicuously associate Harding with the scandal. Let's try a standard short-biography source (also courtesy of my public library); Dictionary of American Biography. Teapot Dome, check. Nan Britton, check. Dpbsmith 18:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

You are quite right, that is most of what I was referring to (though my addition was his illegal use of Viagra which seemed relevant in light of the painkiller charges and only in light of them)—though I’ve asked this question a few different times in some other places as well here for example.

The standard you propose is an interesting one, but I see a few problems with it—

First, that is clearly not the standard that is followed on many pages: see Rudy Giuliani (His affairs will not be part of his obituary nor will the fact that his first marriage was to a cousin.), John McCain (I doubt that the S&L scandal will make his obituary—but I think it is a very relevant and non-gossip scandal), and Hillary Rodham Clinton (Whitewater—another non-gossip scandal—will not make her obituary). Second, the rule you propose is speculative—I don’t think those things will make the obituary, but you might—it provides very little in the way of actual guidance. Third, I think that several important scandals would be left out based on this rule (as I note above) and I find that troublesome. Finally, the rule provides different answers at different times—had McCain died during the S&L scandal it would be part of his obituary and if he dies during another S&L type scandal it might make it, but if he dies today, or during the campaign, it will not.

Mostly though, I am asking for a clear and official statement on what exactly gossip is so that when I am asking myself “is this gossip?” I can look to something other than my own gut felling (which apparently conflicts with the gut feeling of others) about the nature of gossip.--Reginod 12:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

It's "Gossip" if it's about a Conservative. It's a "Legitimate Scandal" if it's about a Liberal. --BDobbs 22:40, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

New Rule

Rule against templates

Since there have been 2.5 bans (User:BDobbs, User:AmesG, and my own temporary ban and the ensuing discussion) about templates (all three given out by TK), I suggest a new rule so that people don't just get banned for breaking a non-existent rule TK simply invented and enforces on the fly:

All article templates have to be authorized by a bureaucrat or by a consensus of a group of sysops. Users who create and/or use such templates without authorization will be banned.

Either implement the rule or stop TK from making up rules. There was no word in an official place that making and using templates is now subject to bureaucrat-approval (it's NOT enough that even two sysops make a template together), and people get banned for it. Hardly sounds fair to me. --Sid 3050 05:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Sid, your post is inappropriate because you haven't been appointed their advocate. It would be appropriate for them to post here, when back, protesting. You deciding, on your own, to say the act isn't vandalism, won't change the fact that it was. Vandalism is against our rules. Quit taking up causes to merely stir the pot. --~ TerryKMyTalk 06:09, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

You forget that you also banned me for allegedly placing an unauthorized template. Besides, I don't have to be "appointed" to be the "advocate" of anybody. This isn't a court or a republic, it's a freaking WIKI. You just assert that people break rules, you assert that I am not authorized to speak for anybody else, you assert that this is a republic. I honestly don't want this to turn into another lengthy discussion. My request was sincere. The end. --Sid 3050 06:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I understand what you have said, and your sticking up for them. The parties knew full well what they were doing when the made and/or stuck it on articles, I think we can agree on that. Being the thinking people they are, I know they at least considered the ramifications of their actions...at least I would like to hope they would. I am not even saying if I agree or not that some articles actually need a sign that says: "This is pure idiocy, and reading it might actually destroy your Brain!". What I am saying, however, is that without consultation, allowing anyone to slap a text box on article pages labeling it, essentially as "BS", can be very disruptive, tantamount to spray painting a wall, the equivalent of typed graffiti, ergo, Vandalism. There isn't any intellectual squabble between me and the parties, no vendetta. Those with power, in the exercising of it, always risk being mistaken. I honestly don't think I am, and if the powers that be disagree, they can and will reverse my actions. Won't be the first time that has happened here, nor I suspect the last. Just understand there wasn't anything personal in my actions, nor on the part of the other Sysop who agreed. --~ TerryKMyTalk 08:12, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

(Since you copied the thing from your Talk page, here is a copy of the reply)

TK, the powers that be (=Andy) won't do anything, no matter what you do (with the exception of going against Andy's view of conservatism). You know this, I know this. Just look at the various complaints about Conservative or you on Andy's pages. The only times when Andy actually bothered to reply was in order to say "I don't see anything wrong." or even "Great job, [accused sysop]! You have my full support!"

Heck, look at the Morality copright thing that got partially revived after the archive-creation. "Hey, what about the morality copyright gig?" - "I thought that was resolved because TK got permission." - "No, it wasn't since that wasn't the only source he copied from." - *no reply*

Or even more extreme, look at the CWilson/Karajou issue that resulted with the complaining user being banned.

So don't worry. Any complaint about you or any other sysop won't put you in any danger of any sort. You won't even have to worry about a slap on the wrist or a scolding "Nuh-uh! Bad sysop!". You are under Andy's shield. If anything, Andy will tell me to stop bothering him. *shrugs* You don't even have to answer in my complaint threads - just ignore me, the result will be the same.

If you want to reply, do so, but don't expect me to answer. I have better things to do than discussing about why you think your actions are justified or not. I only try to bring the written rules more in line with what's actually being enforced.

Just think about this: What is the difference between the template and the various edits that were reverted by Conservative in Theory of Evolution? Arguably, the attempts to remove the extreme anti-evolution bias could be seen as vandalism in your broad sense. We have rules, but they're extremely fuzzy. I'm only trying to trace the borders of these fuzzy areas. The Bible gave people ten laws, and nowadays, there are a few hundred/thousand or so of them. Me trying to refine the existing rules is the same mechanism - the realization that just six rules are not enough to properly cover such a complex place. --Sid 3050 08:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I like your suggested rule, but I think that it should specify how many sysops you need to agree on your template (e.g. 5). --BenjaminS 08:40, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Somewhere between 5 or 8, I would think more than fair, Benjamin. Now, Sid, part of the problem in discussing anything with you is your hyperbole. Could you at least make an attempt to tone down the flamboyant language? It brings a real anger and false urgency to anything you post about. Blocking for a short duration is more in tune with suspension than "banning" which traditionally means never to return. Arguing nit-picks about if this or that is "vandalism" isn't going to garner you support or replies from Andy and the others. Spend less of your posting on complaining and elevating all issues to VERY IMPORTANT status, and more can get done. I notice lots of people with good ideas for this place, and looking at their talk or user pages, also notice really nasty and vile remarks about Andy, and even his family. Surely you realize crap like that isn't going to get them to be willing to take people who do that seriously..... --~ TerryKMyTalk 09:07, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

The stub template seems entirely unnecessary to me. Why do we need a notice telling us an article is short? Anyone can see when an article needs expansion. A category for short articles is beneficial, because it will allow people to find short articles easily, but the stub template is superfluous and distracting. ~ SharonSTalk! 09:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

It's a boot in the tail. If random visitor X see short articles over and over they'll wander off of the site...If they see stub after stub they MAY think "Hey, I could do something on this article!" And register (if it's open) and expand the article. That's my take on that template anyways. -- Crackertalk 09:48, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, Sharon. Rob and Sharon, the template in question, the newest one, in essence it said "This Article Is Moronic", in the original version, it threatened "banning" for the contributor. They revised it to read other, later, but kept the snide tone. Then, as MoutainDew posted on my talk page, it was slapped on several articles by a couple of people. Something about doing that, and something about others here thinking that kind of behavior is acceptable, is whacked. Here are the three templates, the original and the "revised" editions:

Warning!Be advised that editing with a factual bias grounded in reality is counter to the principles of Conservapedia, and if you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing for a period of time, or banned.

Warning!You are editing against the consensus of other users, and to promote your own bias in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. You are requested to cease and desist.

Warning!This article has been identified as containing biased, unsourced statements.

and its location is here [[3]] That earned the guys slapping it up a day or two off, just FYI. --~ TerryKMyTalk 10:43, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Three things. Sharon, you can also search for stubs as a category (articles needing improvement) and see all the articles that need improvement. Convenient. Sid, would this rule apply to templates created by sysops? Myk 12:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it also applies to templates created by sysops. Case in point: The "Protected" template had been created and used by sysops, and due to a hilarious sad mix-up, I ended up in a fairly heated debate about it (after being temp-banned and unbanned). The template had even been temporarily blanked and had then been reworded by Ed and TK to form a sort of "consensus" version. In fact, it had been that template that triggered the whole "Don't insert templates without consulting the other sysops and/or Andy!!!" issue. So just being a sysop does not place you above this rule (hence the careful wording about one bureaucrat or a consensus of a few sysops). --Sid 3050 13:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

There wasn't any "consensus" version of the "Protected" template. Ed and I both agreed, from the outset of the convo, what it should contain. Quit trying to drive wedges, or make it a matter of two "sides". That's careful wording to subtly change history, to make it seem there was an issue, when there was not. Sysops should have to obtain the okay from a minimum of five of their peers before making/including system-wide templates. It is silly thinking that as part of the sites administration, that rules regarding housekeeping would apply to them the same as any casual user, someone who signed up 24 hours earlier. --~ TerryKMyTalk 17:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Easy there. The key phrase right now is "Assume Good Faith". When I wrote "consensus" in quotation marks, I was referring to "consensus formed by two sysops, as opposed to the consensus described in my initial suggestion since the latter has more than just two sysops in mind".

I'm not trying to "change history". That is kinda hard in a place where "history" is an easily accessible tab on virtually all pages. Additionally, I believe that I don't have to change history. It pretty much speaks for itself. If anybody wants to, I can construct a rough timeline of the events, complete with links to the pages in question. All the information is out there, it's just a question of knowing where to look. --Sid 3050 18:06, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, I am glad you clarified what you meant. As to the number of Sysops, am I reading you correctly, you would prefer agreement of two as opposed to 5 or more? --~ TerryKMyTalk 19:11, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I chose the "group of sysops" wording because I didn't really have a value in mind. But the "Protected" thing sorta showed that "two" is not enough (Ed and David are both sysops and formed the "consensus" to use it). Besides, I don't think that two sysops alone have the same "decision-making power level" as one sysop in critical cases.

I still have no fixed value in mind, and I don't think there should be one. Some cases will obviously require more input than others (the higher the impact on pages, the more sysops should be consulted - I'd rank the Protected template relatively low, but a radical template like "This article misrepresents facts and should be rewritten immediately by a more competent editor" should have some serious discussion before usage), so it should be evaluated on the fly by the editor who gets the idea and by the sysops who engage in the discussion.

(And no, I do not suggest that anybody actually creates such a template - it was an extreme example.) --Sid 3050 19:23, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Follow-up note: The "Protected" template in the end only required 3-4 sysops (if I remember correctly), and only 2-3 at a time. Things worked out. That's what I mean with "ranking relatively low" - it was apparent that there was no need for a full poll of 5+ sysops, just a few sysops communicating with each other about goals and implementation. --Sid 3050 19:25, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Fair enough. BTW, the problem with the protected template, and consensus is, while Ed agreed to it, he expressly said it shouldn't be added to users own pages. So even with "consensus" unless communication is clear, and people actually abide by the intentions of the makers, it all falls apart. --~ TerryKMyTalk 20:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Why don't we have Ten Commandments?

Seems like it would be meaningful to have a full set of 10 commandments, showing that our inspiration comes from the Bible. Surely we can come up with 4 more.--Conservateur 19:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I hate to be derivative, but I can think of a couple... Assume Good Faith, Be Civil, and Be Bold (as in, create articles, make articles bigger and better, write, Write, WRITE!) Human 21:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

But some are more equal than others

1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.[4][5]

2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain. Please see Conservapedia's Manual of Style which assists new wiki users on how to put footnotes in an article.[6][7]

3. Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.[8]

4. When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE.

5. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk and only 10% quality edits, may result in blocking of the account. Advertisements are prohibited.[9][10][11]

6. The operation of unauthorized wiki-bots is prohibited.

So we are left with BC and AD and no wiki-bots. But there is no problem adding a ton of capricious rules to randomly block contributors. So THIS is what America would be like if it was run completely by the right wing Christian fundamentalist. Theocratic dictatorship at its best. Etaroced 16:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Would you like me to hold the door for you, Etaroced? --~ TKMyTalk 21:51, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

That kind of proves his point, you know. --BobD 04:55, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

rule 3

I would like to point out that "family-friendly" and "clean" are fairly vague (clean is figurative, and probably not the best terminology) and probably "obscenity" is a better term than "foul language." Perhaps a rewording would be appropriate. Although, perhaps the language is intentional. Sterile 09:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

We use the term "family-friendly" as just that. When we edit here, we have to imagine what we write and how we write it can be seen by families with children. I'm aware of the fact that some children grow up in broken households, but we don't need to contribute to the problem. Karajou 10:32, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

You're missing my point; the term is very vague and figurative. How does an encyclopedia entry become a friend to a family. It's just poor wording. "Prohibits sexually explicity material" or whatever specifically is to be avoided would be more exacting. Sterile 10:45, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps a list of what is to be avoided should be drawn up and posted. How would that do? Karajou 10:47, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I for one think that would be a fantastic idea. A lot of the rules here strike me as fairly vague—if while the list is being drawn up you could give attention to my question above about defining gossip, I’d greatly appreciate that. If it would help, I’ve been recording, for personal use, what sysops have said about the rules (as a sort of collection of Conservapedia dicta if you will) and I’d be more than happy to post that to an appropriate page (it takes up something like 5 pages in Word so I don’t want to post it here).--Reginod 19:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

That is exactly why the rules are not too detailed. A wise Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court once wrote, when they were deliberating a pornography case, that he couldn't define it with words, but knew it when he saw it. Much the same in administering a website, Reginod. Gossip, btw, is unsubstantiated, unverified, talk or conversation that the spreader of has no real first-hand facts or information about. This includes spreading information, let's say, about a marital break-up, where the gossip spreader might or might not have first-hand knowledge, but not from both sides. Without all facts and information, trying to draw a conclusion as to who's fault it was, is senseless. --~ TKMyTalk 20:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I appreciate the clarification TK—in fact you’ve defined gossip roughly how I was defining it. The problem with the “I know it when I see it approach” (which I have to admit I often find myself advocating in real life) is that it leads to very murky rules. So, I may think I’m posting a scandal which belongs on a page, and a sysop reading my addition may think I’ve simply posted gossip. Don’t get me wrong, I‘d be hard pressed to come up with a precise definition for most (if not all) of the important words in the Commandments and I usually agree with the gut instincts of those enforcing the rules here. But I don’t always agree and from reading the comments of others here I gather there are some who agree far less often than I. I think things would run more smoothly if there were some attempt at a rough explication of the rules, some sort of rough guidelines to let those of us trying to help the site know what is in and what is out and to give people a better idea of how the rules will be enforced. That’s just my two cents and I’m not sure what they are worth, but, that’s what I think.--Reginod 21:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, well some of what you wrote I do agree with. However, hard and fast rules, like mandatory sentencing guidelines imposed on Federal Judges, to use a well-known example, also can lead, far more often, to justice being denied or perverted. With a divergent group of Administrators, I have found on other sites that their own good judgement (either before or after meting out punishment, is usually enough to protect users. Absent that, peer pressure and ultimately, perhaps, the site owner(s) (Bureaucrats here) are sufficient brakes on abuse. I do recognize the validity in the scenario you paint above, and have lived it on other sites, and even here. No amount of specificity will protect all of the people, all of the time. There will always be dissension as to punishment, and there will always be what some consider abuse, no matter the precautions, but I would rather have some leeway, than be forced to block someone for a minor offense or mistake. --~ TKMyTalk 21:40, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

"8. the staff, or body of assistants, of an official: the office family.

9. a group of related things or people: the family of romantic poets; the halogen family of elements.

10. a group of people who are generally not blood relations but who share common attitudes, interests, or goals and, frequently, live together: Many hippie communes of the sixties regarded themselves as families."

I guess I can use whatever "family-friendly" terminology that a hippie commune would use. Sterile 22:04, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

That is certainly your right, Sterile. However, I would avise you that since this isn't a judical body, the defense wouldn't be recognized....;-) --~ TKMyTalk 07:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

The 90/10 rule

The 90% 10% edit rule is wrong and should be removed. It just doesn't make sense. To suggest that entries of talk pages are bad is utterly muddleheaded.

The rule encourages people to edit without discussion beforehand, which is highly undesirable.

What is worse, I have seen Aschlafly use it to intimidate people who he is ideologically opposed to or who have asked difficult questions. He, of course, likes the rule because it is the criticism of his behaviour and the behaviour of those he protects that is the real target of the rule.

Under the rule this very post is a black mark against my name. I had better go and do a quick edit to make up for it. --Horace 21:51, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Not even to mention that it's nearly impossible to calculate a halfway exact ratio. Either it's fast ("mainspace edits / total edits") or precise ("Check all edits and decide what is good"), but it can't be both.

The additional problem is: What is a "quality edit"? Is copyediting an article a "quality edit"? What about fixing a dead-end page by inserting links? What about reverting vandalism? If I revert fifty articles that had been replaced with "CONSERVAPEDIA SUCKS!", does that count for or against my ratio? Is discussing policy (or even writing policy) a quality edit? What about helping editors or even sysops with technical problems?

These things will change the way some people act. And I doubt it will be for the better. --Sid 3050 07:51, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I believe it's intended more as a reminder/guideline that productive work is more important than endless arugments than a specific, mathematically calculated rule. I don't think anybody's going to go down the list and count anybody's edits and figure out from there. DanH 20:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Not so Dan. Here is an example:

"Folks, this is an educational project, not a place to bicker and argue. Horace, I've reviewed your edits and found that they are, what, about 90% talk and complaints and less than 10% substantive edits??? More to say but I have run an errand now. Will be back on a bit later.--Aschlafly 20:06, 7 April 2007 (EDT)".

Here's another example:

"OK, Nematocyte, I've reviewed your edits. I estimate that 90% or more of your edits have been talk, talk, talk, and less than 10% substance. And what is an example of one of your edits? I think you called CreationWiki a "peculiar brand of paganism"! My view is that your account should be blocked and I defer to any Sysop who agrees and decides to block your account.--Aschlafly 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)".

Then there's this:

"I don't understand your question, "Flippin", but I invite any Sysop to do a similar review of your edits as I just did for Nematocyte, and act appropriately with respect to your account.--Aschlafly 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)".

The intent is to have a tool that can be used to intimidate editors who irritate Aschlafly. Simple as that. --Horace 20:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll grant there there is truth in your remark, Horace, except that the rule applies for the benefit of all our major editors. I don't want Conservapedia to lose a productive editor because he's being constantly irritated by an unproductive one. If you were in my shoes and wanted to do what is best for Conservapedia, then I'd expect you to impose a similar "enough is enough" rule to stop irritation. Wikipedia rules, which are far more complex and manipulable, are also used to stop the heckling at some point.--Aschlafly 20:52, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I understand your position. There is a job to be done here and it can be distracting to have too many arguments. You will understand that from my perspective, however, the rule looks somewhat different. Where I perceive a wrong or unjust decision I seek to stand up and make my views heard. If I am met with the proposition that I have made too many edits on talk pages that appears to me to be an unfair criticism and a way of attempting to silence my dissent. Of course I edit on talk pages a lot. Firstly, as you know, I am interested in the theory of evolution. That page has been locked pretty much permanently. I have made a large number of edits on the talk page (and other talk pages) in relation to the locking issue. I regard that decision as just plain wrong. What about James Maxwell? I made a number of edits on the talk page which you didn't even respond to. I was trying to avoid an edit war. Should I have just gone ahead and edited the article? Secondly, I am interested in the processes here. As an editor who appears to have a number of views that are contrary to the views of those in charge, I am concerned (more than those in the majority I suspect), to see that the processes are fair. That leads to a large number of talk page posts. Those posts, in my view, are quality posts because they relate to a very important issue. They should not be used against me. --Horace 21:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Horace, you have valid points. But we do have to build an encyclopedia here, and talk is not advancing that goal. I spent far more time today talking than building, and that needs to change. You can talk all you want, provided you help build the encyclopedia too. And that means far more than the evolution entry.--Aschlafly 22:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

From my own (short) personal experience on wikis, I have observed that much of the productive work is done on talk pages. Talk pages are used to discuss article content, resolve disputes, and other important things. I also don't think that there is a need for this rule. Are articles are steadily improving in number and in content. I see this rule as an excuse to block users that disagree. I personally think that users that disagree are very imortant to this site. They keep us honest. It might be somewhat annoying, if someone who disagrees with you is constantly saying "Prove it" but it makes you find citations and back up you reasoning and the like, which makes Conservapedia a better and more credible site. --CPAdmin1 23:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, if one looks at how "normal" encyclopedias are produced, or for that matter just about any other kind of publishing project, the dicussions about the project usually heavily outweigh the actual finished product. I'd guess that for something like the Encyclopedia Britannica, the paperwork and correspondence would probably account for something like 90% of the final output, rather than the opposite. And there's a reason for that. What we're doing here is collaborative editing and publishing, and whenever something is done collaboratively, by a team, good and frequent communications between the participants is absolutely essential. This 10/90 rule may seem like a good idea on the surface, but in the end, it will only result in articles of much lower quality. AKjeldsen 11:54, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Agreed with CP Admin. Due to the nature of my work I tend to contribute almost solely to talk pages (as in I don't have as much time to devote to producing a coherent article from the ground up, etc..). Besides, I'd rather see the information hashed out in the talk pages than an all out "edit war" happen. Hengineer 04:46, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

"No Unlawful Activity?"

Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others. No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed.

Does that include The Law in countries like Saudi Arabia? I mean, we wouldn't want to suggest that women should drive cars, or appear in public without a male family member to escort them, or anything. --BobD 05:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

OH--or smuggle Bibles into Communist North Korea. Can't have any of that subversive activity, nosirree! It's the law!

The intent of the rule should be clear to anybody who is taking this project seriously. DanH 20:54, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I believe he has a point, nonetheless. The law is going to be different depending on where the lawbreaking editor lives. While his suggestion is rather silly, more detail could be added. GofG||| Talk 22:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

The original reason for this rule was because somebody was linking to a site that supported abortion clinic violence. DanH 22:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, so, what about if we write an article ABOUT a terroristic organization. Can we cite their website, even though it repesents an illegal organization? GofG||| Talk 22:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I do see what you're saying. If a situation like that came up, I think it would probably be safest to ask Aschlafly. DanH 22:14, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

The above change is good, clarifying that the rule applies to currently unlawful activity. But honestly I think that's obvious.

I don't I like links to terrorist organizations, even though well-intentioned to expose them. But I defer to the Sysop wisdom on this.--Aschlafly 22:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, Andy. This Sysop, for one, was not consulted about adding links to terrorist organizations. I suspect not many were consulted, and I will remove any I find. Perhaps non-active URL's could be added to the documentation? --~ TKMyTalk 06:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Sources and legality- clarifications and opinions

Currently the commandments state "No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed"- does this mean groups advocating unlawful activity while it is unlawful or does it also include groups that are advocating that a law be changed to let a currently illegal act be legal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoshuaZ(talk)